Would businesses discriminate today? Are laws against discrimination necessary?[W:83]

This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

re: Would businesses discriminate today? Are laws against discrimination necessary?[W:83]

Originally Posted by Black Manta

Then you mite want to look up zoning laws. I am not going to sit here and explain the basic concept that everyone pretty much knows.

Nice try though.

Wonderful how you cut out my examples. I wonder why?

Zoning laws are a good example. However, it should be pointed out that those are not federal, but state and local, which is consistent with the US Constitution. For the FEDERAL government to be messing about in private property rights - that's the constitutional bridge too far.

Again, I'm not arguing against the Civil Rights Act, but specifically against federal regulation of private property.

re: Would businesses discriminate today? Are laws against discrimination necessary?[W:83]

Moderator's Warning:

Knock off the personal attacks or else!

Welfare (Food Stamps, WIC, etc...) are not entitlements. They are taxpayer funded handouts and shouldn't be called entitlements at all. Social Security and Veteran's benefits are 'Entitlements' because the people receiving them are entitled to them. They were earned and paid for by the recipients.

re: Would businesses discriminate today? Are laws against discrimination necessary?[W:83]

Originally Posted by clownboy

Zoning laws are a good example. However, it should be pointed out that those are not federal, but state and local, which is consistent with the US Constitution. For the FEDERAL government to be messing about in private property rights - that's the constitutional bridge too far.

Again, I'm not arguing against the Civil Rights Act, but specifically against federal regulation of private property.

I know all this. Please point out where I said "Federal Government" I did not. I said state and local.

Your quote literally has nothing to do with my point or anything else I was saying...

Originally Posted by Black Manta

The business license issued buy the state, local governments is a contract. To maintain said license they must obey the laws as set down by the state including discrimination laws. If they don't like it, they can go someplace else to do business.

The contract trumps private property in this case.

Originally Posted by Moot

Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.

Originally Posted by Absentglare

You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

Re: Would businesses discriminate today? Are laws against discrimination necessary?[W

Originally Posted by Henrin

I already know about zoning laws.

Then please explain this...

Originally Posted by Henrin

You know, telling people what they can and can't do with their property is a violation unless the action itself is violating the rights of someone else. I don't see how your example qualifies.

So you are saying it is your right to open a store in a residential area? Or something of that nature? My example is not only valid, it is law and Constitutional. It trumps any right you have to do what you want with private property, period. So when you apply for a business licence you are agreeing to their terms and they are legal and Constitutional. They include anti-discrimination laws which have so far passed Constitutional muster.

Originally Posted by Henrin

How did I cut out your example? I highlighted it and backspaced it out.

Why did I do it? Because the constitutionally of zoning laws I'm not interested in talking about.

Originally Posted by Moot

Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.

Originally Posted by Absentglare

You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

Re: Would businesses discriminate today? Are laws against discrimination necessary?[W

Originally Posted by JayDubya

No, your BEHAVIOR was ridiculous and uncalled for flaming because of your post's content.

You have continued to be not only ridiculous this time, but you have now crossed the line.

Perhaps *you* are the closed-minded bigot, blindly accusing others of racism because they disagree with you politically.

At no point has anyone in this thread advocated for discrimination or promoted racism.

I doubt very much if that will change. I do fear that this discussion is generally impossible because of people who behave like you, accusing others of racism out of turn.

Thankfully there are people like me who are not cowed by those who frivolously play the race card...

So, then, apparently you are arguing that the purity property rights should trump individual rights to ownership. If that is so, then accept my apology for assuming you are racist. I don't agree with you, however. In your world, people could refuse to sell property to blacks, refuse to rent homes or apartments to them, refuse to serve them in their restaurants. That's not a time in history I'm particularly proud of. A shame we need The Civil Rights Act(s) in all their permutations, but it's quite clear that we do.

Re: Would businesses discriminate today? Are laws against discrimination necessary?[W

Originally Posted by Black Manta

I know all this. Please point out where I said "Federal Government" I did not. I said state and local.

Your quote literally has nothing to do with my point or anything else I was saying...

Hmmm, I thought we were having this discussion in the context of the FEDERAL Civil Rights Act. Pardon me if I got that wrong, but that is the context I was using for the discussion.

On to the restaurant example, from what is posted here, a business can get around this federal regulation by simply going co-op or membership based. So, the restaurant could offer long term memberships free and temporary day memberships only to those they wished to serve, correct?

Re: Would businesses discriminate today? Are laws against discrimination necessary?[W

Originally Posted by clownboy

Hmmm, I thought we were having this discussion in the context of the FEDERAL Civil Rights Act. Pardon me if I got that wrong, but that is the context I was using for the discussion.

On to the restaurant example, from what is posted here, a business can get around this federal regulation by simply going co-op or membership based. So, the restaurant could offer long term memberships free and temporary day memberships only to those they wished to serve, correct?

I would have no problem with it, but the state might if a stink was made about it.

Originally Posted by Moot

Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.

Originally Posted by Absentglare

You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

Re: Would businesses discriminate today? Are laws against discrimination necessary?[W

Originally Posted by clownboy

On to the restaurant example, from what is posted here, a business can get around this federal regulation by simply going co-op or membership based. So, the restaurant could offer long term memberships free and temporary day memberships only to those they wished to serve, correct?

I just looked this up, and the requirement is somewhat more specific than what youi're talking about. Title II of the CRA exempts "private clubs." What qualifies as a private club is fairly limited. Here's a short summary courtesy of the ACLU:

"In order to be exempt from the civil rights laws, a "private" club must truly reserve its facilities for members, and must have genuinely exclusive membership criteria – a club that will admit anyone who is not African American does not qualify. Courts deciding whether a club is “private” in this sense will consider the history and purpose of the club (including whether it was created to circumvent desegregation), the club advertises for members, it is directly controlled by its members and operated solely for their benefit, and the club is operated for profit."When Is a Private Club Not a 'Private Club'? :: American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania

So the day membership concept if used by what is essentially an open-to-the-public restaurant would not pass muster.

Re: Would businesses discriminate today? Are laws against discrimination necessary?[W

Originally Posted by Black Manta

Then please explain this...

So you are saying it is your right to open a store in a residential area? Or something of that nature? My example is not only valid, it is law and Constitutional. It trumps any right you have to do what you want with private property, period. So when you apply for a business licence you are agreeing to their terms and they are legal and Constitutional. They include anti-discrimination laws which have so far passed Constitutional muster.

Sigh..

Originally Posted by me

This premise of laws trumping rights is a faulty one and there is no reason what so ever I should humor it.

Hmm? I'm sorry, but not dealing with something that I consider to be entirely irrelevant doesn't do much for you. You might have noticed I ignored it again when you decided to included in this post as well.